Monday, July 24, 2017

Washington Swamp's Russian Fever

Supposed “Russian interference” is
the Democrats' morning-after poison pill for the results of the 2016
election. From November 9 onward, this narrative has been intended
to undermine Donald Trump, and hamstring his “Make America Great
Again” agenda.

Unfairly, the liberal MSM has rabidly
embraced wild-eyed supposition based upon unsubstantiated innuendo.
Its underlying purpose is a face-saving measure to distract from the
complete repudiation of progressives' eight years of failures. This
effort also had the immediate benefit of painting
responsibility-phobic Hillary—and her Democratic fellows—as
victims of an “international conspiracy”.

Given this contrivance, one is reminded
of Mrs. Clinton's outrageous January 27, 1988 claim of a “vast
right wing conspiracy” against her presidential hubby for his
adulterous affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Then as
now, a pattern of pure fiction spun as a distraction for Clintonian
misdeeds. Specifically, during the last election cycle, what of
Hillary's less than truthful answers; her highly suspect decisions
related to her Server-gate scandal; her influence-peddling
Charity-gate dealings; her obvious deficiencies as a politician?

Unfortunately, the entrenched
Washington establishment has used this political smoke and mirrors as
a feeble excuse not to pass meaningful legislation. That means both
parties. On one hand, Democrats take up wasted space in Congress,
filling the air with anti-Trump rhetoric. On the other, Republicans
sit on their hands, ignoring their languishing seven-year pledge to
repeal and replace ObamaCare. These dysfunctions epitomize “the
swamp” President Trump is working mightily to drain.

Ah, the idle political class—typified
by poster boy Paul Ryan (R-WI). He stated on May 17, 2017, “It is
obvious there are some people out there who want to harm the
president.’’ As he acknowledges this is the case, why not put a
stop to months of nebulous, fruitless inquiries? With no
evidence—and no end in sight—why do GOP enablers facilitate a
huge distraction from the successful agenda the president ran on? Is
it political cover for their own fecklessness?

For historical context, recall Mr.
Ryan's acceptance speech as House Speaker on October 29, 2015:

“But let’s be frank: The House is
broken. We are not solving problems. We are adding to them. And I am
not interested in laying blame. We are not settling scores. We are
wiping the slate clean. Neither the members nor the people are
satisfied with how things are going. We need to make some changes,
starting with how the House does business.”

Doe-eyed Ryan promised a “fresh
start,” but delivered more gridlock. Conciliatory lip service
notwithstanding, what of his results? Likewise, what of his Senate
counterpart Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)? Both seem to
have an innate aversion to taking the political heat leadership
requires. In large part, this ire comes from collectively
intractable Democrats. Yet, where is their consensus building within
GOP's ranks? Given the rejection of the status quo articulated by
the last election cycle—why hasn't either man forcefully defended
the president? Why haven't they told Congressional Democrats to stow
their obstructionist carping? As a touchstone, why wasn't the
ObamaCare repeal bill ready for President Trump's signature on day
one: January 20, 2017?

After all, the Republicans ran against
the healthcare debacle for years. Precisely as establishment
Democrats, Congressional RINOs played politics to gain legislative
majorities. Now, after six months of a new administration and GOP
dominance in Congress, what do Ryan and McConnell have to show for
it? The American Healthcare Act (AHCA) barely passed the House,
217-213 and may not pass in the Senate. How's that for snatching failure out of the jaws
of victory? Indeed, if McConnell's minions don't coalesce behind the
president's policies forthwith, they will be “swamped” by
Democrats eager to replace them in 2018.

It's not the Trump campaign that needs
attention here, but Hillary Clinton herself. Specifically, as then
Secretary of State, she rubber stamped the Uranium One “deal” in
which 20% of U.S. domestic uranium production was ceded to Kremlin
control. In exchange, the now defunct Clinton Foundation received
four donations totaling $2.35 million. A real Soviet windfall! If
that's not blatant enough, Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for a
Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with government ties
promoting Uranium One stock. So, who has Russian ties and likely
colluded? That's clear to anyone not subscribing to the Democrats'
dishonest “red scare”. A politically expedient bogeyman spawned
by do-nothing Republicans and corrupt liberals' wishful thinking.